in the Lawrence v Texas case that those plaintiffs were imperfect and therefore the defense attorneys did everything they could to keep them out of the public eye. And it worked: the majority opinion talked about the right to sexual privacy through the lens of love and domestic intimacy, without referencing the plaintiffs in any specific way. How was Hardwick different? In what ways was he "imperfect"? Did he counter the "asexual" norm that Godsoe identified as so important to the self-presentation of plaintiffs in the Obergefell case? And if so, where did that imperfect character show up? Did he put himself in the news? Did the oral argumentation reference him as a character (as opposed to staying focused on the abstract concepts his case represented)? SOURCES BELOW------:

Obergfell:

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/14-556

Bowers v. Hardwick:

1.) https://www.oyez.org/cases/1985/85-140

2.) https://www.nyulawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/NYULawReview-73-3-Pickhardt.pdf

3.). https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1986/08/21/the-unintended-battle-of-michael-hardwick/73fb94db-2b0f-4bf8-8220-aa5070e996c6/

Lawrence v. Texas:

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2002/02-102

Imperfect/Perfect Plantiff Articles:

https://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/perfect-plaintiffs ("GODSOE")